Laserfiche WebLink
<br />H31 POO/IOOi HTO <br /> <br />'l <br /> <br />'f <br /> <br />November 17,2003 <br />Page 2 of2 <br /> <br />easement comments from 1999, but received no response. I have called appropriate Washington <br />DC USFS representatives over ten times and have not received any return calls. <br /> <br />In the meanwhile, the USFS in the San Juan National Forest has required a 3.0 cis bypass flow <br />from the Pagosa Area Water and Sanitlltion District as a precondition for a Special Use Permit <br />for a water pipeline to replace a ditch and is requiring a 3.0 cfs bypass for restorati,)Q work in the <br />Dutton Ditch by II client entitled to a Ditch Bill casement. <br /> <br />We suggest two approaches to resolve the iS5Ue. Perhaps CWCB board members will have <br />additional ideas. <br /> <br />J, Obtain support from the Depanment of Natural Resources for a face-la-face <br />meeting with USFS offieials in DC about the issues. <br /> <br />2. We believe the USFS is awaiting results of bypass flow cases in the 9'h Circuit <br />(Washington State) and in the 10th Circuit Trout Unlimited's case in Wyom~ District Coutt <br />regarding the AIapaho Naz:ional Forest. These cases, however, are Special Use P,:rmit cases, not <br />Ditch Bill easement cases. We would SUl:iest the Attorney General's office research the <br />potential for different arguments against bypass flows in the case of a Ditch Bill easement and, if <br />a different case can be made, suggest "friendly" litigation with the USFS to settl: the Ditch Bill <br />bypass flow issue, No bypass flow language would be allowed in Ditch Bill easEmentS awaiting <br />the results of the litigation. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />M.&.YNES, BRADFORD, SIDPPS & SHEJITEL, LLP <br /> <br />~~~ <br /> <br />Janice C, Sheft:el <br /> <br />rcs:sps <br />cc: Ditch Bill Committee <br />Greg Walcher <br />Frank McNulty <br />Carol Angel <br /> <br />H:\1pG\S'W\VB\Dit~h QiU\Schwiad:t memo.doe.!l /17/03 <br />